Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the As if some debates around PlanetBlogO'Science aren't worth having? (Well, maybe, but whatever...)
Last October a National Academy of Sciences panel, chaired by an industry titan and big W supporter, put out a report titled Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
Their charge was to respond to this request by Senators Bingaman (D-NM) and Lamar (R-TX):
What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policymakers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century? What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions?
And their conclusions? That we're not spending enough $$ on S&T R&D and science education.
Of course, the panel was empanelled to say exactly that, so their conclusion is no surprise. (In fact, I was recently in a seminar with one National Science Board member who stated, clear as day, that Norm Augustine (former CEO of Militaryindustrialcomplex, Inc.) was chosen to head the panel with the sole intent of giving the report weight with the Bush Administration. This inherent financial conflict of interest [industry saying, "please train us more engineers and scientists on the taxpayer dime!"] apparently went by unnoticed.)
There are many things to say about the report, but one thing can definitely be said: the report made such a splash that W covered it in his SOTU and a few different Congresspeople rushed to put out or jump on authorization bills to address the concerns of the report. Senator Lieberman (voted 1992 "Mr. Connecticut" by 4 out of 5 dentists), who for years has been pushing a doubling of NSF funding to match the recent doubling of NIH, was armed and ready. His bill, S.2109 is almost a direct response to the report and currently has 23 consponsors. (One thing about perusing Lieberman bills: they all authorize the spending of lots and lots of money. Just go to Thomas and choose Browse Bills by Sponsor.)
It's going to be hard to find a scientist in the U.S. who will quibble with the "science needs more money!!" conclusion. But since the report's conclusions fall under the ever present "common knowledge" and/or "accepted fact" genres, and since the report makes what seems to be broad conclusions based on "common knowledge" or assumptions, the report is well worth examining.
And so Roger has started a thorough examination of the report, and you can read the first installment here.
What I want to pick out is the first comment by David Bruggeman:
So, it appears this document will join a long list of reports agitating for more funding and doing a lousy job of explaining why.An aside. Roger suggests:
"For example, one way to encourage "riskier" research in NSF would be to do away with the second review criterion focused on broader societal impacts and focus narrowly on scientific merit."
Let me also suggest that another way to encourage "riskier" research in NSF would be to truly address requirement two, or even shift emphasis toward greater societal impacts. It all depends on how you define your risk. Seems that RAGS did a lousy job of defining its terms and assumptions. Bad policy work.
The debate that Bruggeman brings up is what I refer to in the title of this post: why do we even spend taxpayer money on basic science research? Is it to fund science for discovery's sake alone? Or to meet an array of identified societal needs?
The original post-WWII Vannevar Bush model was that the feds give money to the scientists for basic research, the scientists decide how to allocate that money, and society gets innumerable benefits, even if a direct link can't be made between individual projects and economic growth.
But it turns out that of all the American taxpayer cash spent on S&T R&D, only a small portion goes to the agencies engaged in basic science research. About 55% goes to defense R&D and 20% to NIH (see chart). The National Science Foundation, the flagship of basic research for the U.S. government, gets only 3% of all federal R&D funds.
The Bruggeman/Pielke question is about this small pool of basic research funds, what it is for, and whether more of it should be slated for "risky" research. Notice that both seem to endorse the idea that more "risky" research would be better - which could be itself debated.
But assuming that more risky research would be a good thing, the debate is how to encourage it. Pielke says, 'make NSF only about science for science's sake and throw away any idea about larger societal implications.' (That's the broader impacts in NSF's Grant Proposal Guide.) Bruggeman says if you truly followed the broader impacts criterion (I would guess that most NSF grantees and panelists mostly ignore it), you would encourage "risky" research.
It's an open question, and hopefully one that scientists will start engaging in. In my experience, scientists are all too willing to let it rest at "I just apply to NSF for grants, don't ask me why Congress is giving out this money!" and in doing so they let policy scientists, decision makers and others have the debate for them.
Comments
# 1 | anonymous | February 28, 2006 12:21 PM
"55% goes to defense R&D"
It's absurd to equate military programs with scientific research. Most R&D carried out by the military is, to be generous, much closer to engineering than to any kind of science. It is questionable to consider it beneficial in any social sense other than providing large profits to contractors and employment to some Americans.
# 2 | kevin | February 28, 2006 12:48 PM
My point was, there is a big pot of taxpayer money doled out for R&D. Society has decided that most of that money should go to activities that cannot be considered "basic research." Only a small part of it goes to "basic research."
# 3 | anonymous | February 28, 2006 1:26 PM
Yes, I agree, I saw your point. I was just emphasizing the absurdity of classifying military expenditures as R&D. I have to admit that by definition American society has decided to spend large sums on the military. And, if you asked a typical American why we fund basic science, he would probably respond that we shouldn't. If he reads the news or watches TV he might cite some of the scientific research into areas that reporters and those with political motives consider boondoggles. The typical American probably has no reason to think basic research is good and useful unless someone tells him. We will have a long wait if we expect politicians to do that.
# 4 | Dr. Free-Ride | February 28, 2006 3:04 PM
At least some of the federal money that supported the research in my graduate laboratory (where we studied far-from-equilibrium dynamics and thermodynamics in a variety of chemical systems) came from the Department of Defense. Some of what we discovered, eventually, somehow might have some useful defense application, but I'm pretty sure no one in our lab (or at DoD) could tell you what it might be.
Just a stray datum to consider...
# 5 | Roman Werpachowski | February 28, 2006 5:21 PM
Basic science does profit from military spending. Reagan's "Star Wars" program pushed the field of quantum optics years ahead. I've recently been to a Quantum Optics conference in Poland, which was partly sponsored by guess who? ... US Air Force.
If you read some classic paper by Lowdin on density matrices, you'll see he thanks US Navy for funding. But this was 50 years ago.
# 6 | anonymous | February 28, 2006 5:31 PM
There are a lot -- a whole freaking lot -- of very intelligent people working in military-related fields. They can sometimes produce something of real use despite what they are doing. If they were allowed to use their talents on real research, I think what they could do would be mind boggling. But the military soaks up so much money that there is relatively little left for non-military research. My own field dried up when his truly, Ronald Reagan, came into office and started his Star Wars program. A lot of people think he originated the idea of missile defense; he didn't. He was just so ignorant that he didn't realize it was already being done and had been going on for more than two decades before he came into office. But what PR!
# 7 | anon | March 1, 2006 6:42 AM
The "broader impacts" is a bit of a joke. From what I've seen, scientists will throw in something about taking a teacher along on an experiment, or educating high school/undergrad/grad students, or making a website. The proposed "broader impacts" have become pretty standard and often uninspiring.
# 8 | David Bruggeman | March 1, 2006 1:41 PM
"Notice that both seem to endorse the idea that more "risky" research would be better - which could be itself debated."
This could certainly be debated, and should. However, that level of discussion is rarely, if ever, countenanced at any level. Kevin suggests that scientists have opted out of debating such questions, leaving it to policy scientists, decision makers and others.
But how much of a debate actually takes place? Has any group with input on the topic really discussed the proper character of scientific research since the post-WWII NSF debates? If so, it's a pretty well kept secret.